Subject: [mobile-ip] Nonce Indices option

From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:25:16 +0900

Hi,

I need clarification on handling Nonce Indices option.
Going through Section 9.4.1, it seems that Nonce Indices option
is not mandatory (there is no "MUST" description) in MN sending
BU to CN.

I wonder how can CN locate corresponding {home,care-of} nonce
when it receives BU without Nonce Indices option.

Regards,
Shinta Sugimoto

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:48:03 +0300

> when it receives BU without Nonce Indices option.

An oversight. I suppose you are referring to the following
paragraph:

     -  The Home and Care-of Nonce Index values in the Nonce Indices
        mobility option are recognized by the correspondent node.  As
        described in Section 5.2, the correspondent node discards Nonce
        values that are too old.

We should make it clear that both the option is mandatory and the recognition
are MUSTs. I also would like to avoid repeating text from 5.2. So:

     -  A Nonce Indices mobility option MUST be present, and the
        Home and Care-of Nonce Index values in this option MUST be
        recent enough to be recognized by the correspondent node.

Does this help?

Jari

---

From: Shinta Sugimoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 18:38:33 +0900

Hello,

>         described in Section 5.2, the correspondent node discards Nonce

Yes.

>         recent enough to be recognized by the correspondent node.

Yes, thank you.

I think it would be better to make the Nonce Indices option MUST.
(It will limit the way of handling cookies though)
If it's not mandatory, CN will easily suffer from receiving BU without
the option and trying to match nonces.

Regards,
Shinta Sugimoto

---

From: Brian Haley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 10:16:57 -0400

>         recent enough to be recognized by the correspondent node.

Only when RR is used as the authorization method, correct?

-Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:45:01 +0300

Brian Haley wrote:

>>        recent enough to be recognized by the correspondent node
> 

Correct. This bullet item is under the text that says "When the
return routability procedure is used as an authorization method..."

Jari